most certainly a misquotation of II. 10. 41 sidera sunt testes et matutina pruina...te nihil in uita nobis acceptius umquam. The same commentator on G. 1. 19 says that some attribute the invention of the plough to Triptolemus and others, more correctly, to Osiris, ut dicit Propertius uel Tibullus. Here the uel marks a correction; and the reference is to Tibullus 1. 7. 29. None of these passages prove anything. Lachmann lays more stress on Ovid Tr. 2. 447 sqq. where Ovid alleges in justification of his own Ars Amatoria the practice of previous poets; and, after quoting largely from Tibullus, says, multaque dat talis furti praecepta docetque qua nuptae possint fallere ab arte uiros: nec fuit hoc illi fraudi; legiturque Tibullus et placet et iam te principe notus erat. inuenies eadem blandi praecepta Properti; districtus minima nec tamen ille notast. Lachmann asks 'where shall we find them?' In answer to this, we must observe first that we are not to expect to find too many. For, on the one hand, we must remember that it was to Ovid's interest to make the most of his authorities in amatory writing; and on the other that it may be inferred from his dwelling at so much greater length on Tibullus than Propertius that the latter did not lend him so much countenance as the former. In fact, the allusion to him looks like one of those references which are not intended to be verified. There are some passages in Propertius which point in the same direction as the lines in Ovid. Thus we have Iv. 3. 49 ut per te clausas sciat excantare puellas qui uolet austeros arte ferire uiros; and cf. v. 20 quae legat expectans sola puella uirum. The meaning of these and other passages is elucidated by 1. 7. 13 me legat assidue post haec neglectus amator et prosint illi cognita nostra mala, which shews that Propertius' teaching was rather by example than precept. We find praecepta about love also in 1. 1. 35 sqq., 1. 9, 1. 10. 15-30, III. 20 (17). 21 sqq., and v. 5. 21 sqq. where the speaker is Acanthis. Compare also Iv. 7 (8). 25, 26 where by a provoking chance several lines are lost. There are other passages and pieces whose spirit might have been in Ovid's mind at the time. Hence on the whole we may pronounce that there is enough foundation for the statement in the works as we have them at present, but only just enough. Lacunae. I now pass on to (b). And first for the poems themselves. I do not think that any one who reads the poems carefully can suppose that they are in all cases complete. In determining which are not, the very greatest care is needed. We must remember, firstly, that the ordinary rules of coherence do not apply to Propertius, and that a harsh transition of thought by no means implies a lacuna. Secondly, in some cases where that has been assumed, a transposition will set everything right. After all these deductions there still are left several places where lacunae must be assumed. Such are found in 11. 6, 11. 9, and elsewhere. But L. Müller and Baehrens have assumed far too many. The loss of whole poems remains unproven. The second argument is drawn from 11. 13. 25, 26 (III. 5. 9 where see note) sat mea sat magnast si tres sint pompa libelli quos ego from II. 13. 25 Persephonae maxima dona feram. It is Argument contended that tres libelli implies at least finished books, and that consequently this distich formed originally part of the third book; from which it would follow that the end of the second book has been lost. This however is by no means necessary. The instructions which the poet is here giving for the conduct of his funeral are not death-bed instructions. He is in one of his despondent moods, and contemplating the remote phanton. of death (cf. quandocumque v. 1), as though it were face to face. Like Shakspere's Richard and from II. 10. II., he will ‘talk of graves and worms and epitaphs.' Why then should he not refer to unfinished books? It seems to me that this adds more point to the poem. 'I must die,' he says; 'but I shall die content, if I am not forgotten in my grave, if you, Cynthia, are faithful to me, and three books preserve my name.' Another poem which has been pressed into the service is the one addressed to Augustus, II. 10 (III. 1), which it is asseverated can only have formed the exordium of a new book. This contention may be met by a simple non sequitur. I have pointed out in the commentary to this poem that, if it is intended to introduce a fresh book, it is a most inappropriate introduction, as only one poem out of the remainder has anything to do with Augustus. But not only are the arguments for the Arguments aproposed change thus inconclusive, but it is gainst the refuted by positive evidence. As already said, the MSS. are against it, and they must count for something. Nonius, the grammarian, is against it (p. 169); for he quotes secundat III. (IV.) 21. 14 as occurring in the third book. Lastly, if we can trustand I think we can the phrase so far, Propertius himself is against it: for in II. 24. 1 [ш. 17 (15). 1], quoting what others say of him, he says tu loqueris cum sis iam noto fabula libro, et tua sit toto Cynthia lecta foro. Lachmann's theory then appears to be little more than an arbitrary surmise; and the sooner it goes and disencumbers our editions of the double notation the better'. theory. All 1 This is the proper place to explain why in this edition I have retained a notation which I have rejected above as unfounded. When the commentary was written and the text printed, the division into five books was the accepted one. the latest editors had adopted it; and I did not wish to introduce innovating restorations into a volum of selections; the more so as the editions which were then most generally used in England (Müller's and Paley's), and whose numbering I I now pass to consider the date of the various poems. There are very few chronological traces in the first book. I. viii. seems to the books. have been written when the law forbid Composition of Book I. ding celibacy was contemplated (see v. 21); and Hertzberg (1. pp. 23, 24) has advanced arguments to shew that I. vi. was not written before B. C. 27. The clues we get for the date of the composition of the various poems in the second book (II. and III.) are, omitting allusions to events earlier than B. C. 28, Book II. II. i. B.C. 25 (after publication of first book). vii, after B. C. 27. X. (III. i.) B. C. 24 (see notes). xxxi. (III. xxix.) end of B. c. 28. xxxiv. (III. xxxii.) not earlier than B. C. 28. Thus all the poems in Book II. whose date can be settled fall within the period embraced between B. C. 28 and 24. Book III. Book III. (IV.), like Book 1., contains very few allusions that we can fix to a precise date. Elegy xvii. (xviii.) was written after the Ideath of Marcellus in 23. The allusions to the expedition against the Parthians to recover the standards of Crassus iii. (iv.), iv. (v.) 48, xi. (xii.) 3, 4 probably point to the same period. For, it is to be observed that nowhere does Propertius hint that the standards have been recovered. His exultation is always prospective. The last poem in the book, as already said, must have been written six years after the beginning of the Cynthia attachment. On the other hand, el. proposed to use in citing Propertius, gave the new division. Since then all is changed. The two last editors, Baehrens and Palmer, have returned to the old order, and I can only regret that my own book had advanced too far to permit my making the change. Baehrens, I may add, though printing the мs. order, believes that 11. 7—13 (or 11. 7—111. 5) belong to Book III. (IV.). [See however Addendum to Appendix, p. 249.] xx. goes back to its very beginning. Thus the poems included in Book III. (IV.) fall between B. C. 28 and 23. Book IV. (v.) presents many difficult problems. There can be no doubt that it contains Book IV. some of the poet's latest work. Elegies vi. and xi. were not composed before B. C. 16; and, as we have already seen, elegy vii. cannot be much earlier. But about the rest of the book we cannot be at all certain. It is probable that el. viii. was written before B. C. 23. At any rate it was composed long before vii. We shall not be far wrong in assigning iii. to B. C. 23. Elegy i. cannot at most be later than the same year: and some scholars put the first part of it much earlier. Elegy v. was written after the beginning of the Cynthia attachment. The date of the remaining poems is quite uncertain. Their subjects, like that of the first part of el. i., are antiquarian and historical. Some critics consider them to be the earliest poems and others amongst the latest: and probably either the one or the other opinion is right. poems were Book I. It is a natural question next when the published. The first book is the only one whose publication can with certainty be Publication of ascribed to Propertius himself; and we have assigned it conjecturally to B. C. 25. The second and still more the third book shew, as we have observed, some appearance of being prepared for publication. The publication of the second cannot have been earlier than B. C. 24 nor that of the third than B. C. 23. And we can say little else. They may have been published separately or together, they may have been issued by Propertius during his life or (less probably) by his executors F. P. 1 See verses 7-10, 18, 35, &c. Books II. and III. |